>Are all those votes suspect? No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. If I bribe 10 politicians and 4 of

>Are all those votes suspect? No because those representatives didn't vote in a way that favors the companies that donated. If I bribe 10 politicians and 4 of them don't do what I want, does that that mean the other 6 who did are now above suspicion as well? Voting in a way that favors a company that donates money to your political campaign creates at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest. In those cases we should rightly be suspicious. >I find it dishonest for an article to say that corporations donated to a candidate, when they actually mean that a corporation donated to a PAC Do you find it dishonest when an article says a corporation donated to a candidate, when actually they mean that a corporation donated to a candidate's campaign? A candidate only personally benefits from campaign donations insofar as they help them get reelected--the same way they benefit from PACs. There isn't much distinction at this point because PACs routinely operate as extensions of campaigns, even though they are technically prohibited from coordinating. It doesn't stop them from doing things like winking and putting up random video clips with no audio on the campaign websites that PACs can just happen to download to make advertisements with. >or that employees donated to a candidate I agree that this is a little more misleading. >AT&T alone has 5,600 employees in Tennessee That's true, but my guess is that most of the money that was donated from employees of the telecom industry came from a much smaller number of high level employees donating near the maximum.